Dear Editor:

I applaud your editorial regarding Toni’s failure to answer questions. For far too long, I think she’s been riding on the coattails of the GLT community and using her sexuality as a free pass to win over our votes and approval of her.

Being that she is not eligible for re-election, what has she got to loose by answering questions and coming clean? If she has nothing to hide, she has nothing to loose, but if there really is something to hide I can see why she refuses to be interviewed, after all prosecuters could use her answers in court.

All that aside, Toni has completely lost my respect.

Our parks don’t even have bags for people to pick up after their dogs any more, and she approved the Gotham City sized building in Hillcrest across from Hamburger Mary’s, dispite an outpouring of oposition from the majority of her constituants. I honestly do not feel like Toni deserves to be my elected representative any more.

Sincerely,

Rob Klaproth

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=7931

Dear Editor:

Your interview with Councilmember Atkins could have been taken seriously as journalism if you had simply asked the questions and reported her answers, rather than inserting obviously editorial comments throughout the piece.

An example: “But many members of the GLBT community still have unanswered questions.” How do you know this? What number, exactly, qualifies as “many” to you?

Another example: “Even Atkins’ strongest supporters are having trouble reconciling her longstanding reputation for being an honest and trustworthy elected official with the information provided in the Kroll report.” This sentence has no facts to back it up and is therefore not much more than your opinion. It implies that somehow all Atkins’ “strongest” supporters are questioning her integrity. To whom is this sentence referring to, exactly? How many people are we talking about?

Towards the end of this extended editorial masquerading as an interview, you actually touched upon an example of why Atkins is held in such high regard, not only by many of her “strongest supporters” but by many San Diegans. You portrayed her decision not to oppose incumbent San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts earlier this year as thwarted political ambition. Yet a poll that was commissioned almost a year ago showed that Atkins could have beaten Roberts, had she chosen to run. However, she decided to stay put in her council seat because she realized that, at this time, the city needed her more than the county did. She chose not to run away from a difficult situation when she could have escaped it by winning another office.

Now THAT’S integrity.

The Kroll Report is but ONE piece of information so far concerning the city’s financial mess. Let’s not treat it as anything more than that.

Craig Roberts

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8348

Dear Editor:

Your editorial this week (9.21.06) was right on, until now our household has supported Toni Atkins, but no more, We will never vote for her again, she has lost our support!

We agree that your paper has always been a supporter of Toni, but I think she should stop and think about her role as a representative of the gay and lesbian community and of the Hillcrest District. We think the time she spent as Deputy Mayor went to her head.

Don Andersen and Partner

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8149

Dear Editor:

I’m writing in response to the Letter to the Editor in issue 982 from Rev. Keith Ramsey. In particular “’Mo’ is a disparaging, belittling, demeaning term derived from “homosexual”, which is in itself problematic. Homosexual was originally coined to describe our (supposed) sexual pathology and applies a strictly genital definition to Gay folk. It defines us solely by what we do in bed, and our sexuality is, I maintain, our least significant distinguishing characteristic.”

A phrase that strikes me as coming from a very damaging place in our advancement in society as well as ignoring the great strides that have been made in our gaining equality in our culture. It is a comment I have heard from many in the community who view asslimiation into the mainstream as more important than our acceptance. I’d like to remind the Rev. that he did not write a letter to International Judy Garland Fan Club, that I have never heard of anyone being beaten up because their brown shoes did not go with their black belt, that teens are kicked out of their homes because they perfer dance music over rap, or that we are not allowed to marry because we haven’t shown our love to be true.

We are discriminated against and formed a community around the fact that we are people who have sex and emotional intimate relationships with the same gender. To ignore our sexaulity or make it “our least distingishing characteristic” is to ignore the reason we have to sturggle for acceptance. Through our fight for equality some have forgotten the very reason we are seen as lesser than, to forget our past or ourselves is to repeat our history of living in the closet. That is the ultimate goal of asslimiation, forget who we are, and hopefully everyone else will too so we can be just like them. Be proud of our sexauilty it is what unites us. It is what allows us to be who we are today.

Eric Hufford

Los Angeles boys of Leather

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8327

Dear Editor:

I just read Ben Cartwright’s article on how we might be getting an upscale restaurant in Hillcrest. At first impression, it sounds great, but the devil is in the details for this future restaurant and lounge.

EnDev LLC owns Stingray downtown, which is a nice upscale restaurant, but upon looking at their prices for drinks($13-$15) and by the bottle prices of grey goose($275), it was if they were definetly catering to high rollers with alot of money. Just to let you know I went to the Pride event they hosted this year and I thought that most cabanas on the rooftop were going to be reserved. About 3-4 out of 10 cabanas where occupied and the price tag to have two bottles of grey goose cost about $550...At lei, you can get something similar to a large picture of vodka premixed with cranberry juice for about $80

For most people that work for a living in hillcrest and the surrounding areas this establishment will not bring the neighborhood together. They made a carefully worded statement saying that this restaurant is for everybody, straight, bi, gay, lesbian, because they know the local community will not be able to support it and will have to rely heavly from people outside the community.

I think most restaurants in hillcrest strive to serve the local community and also others outside the community, but if this is going to be another restaurant with stingray prices, especially with discretionary spending on the downturn, because of the real estate market, they will definetly have to heavly rely on people outside the community and tourist to support it.

Nick Olow

See www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=8195